Even so, the international reaction has been “far above what we expected,” Frederik Obermaier, one of the German newspaper’s investigative reporters, said.

As the revelations from the massive document dump continued to ripple around the world, POLITICO caught up with Obermaier in a phone conversation in which he discussed how Süddeutsche Zeitung handled the leak, why the source may have come forward, and why these investigative projects are vital for the future of newspapers:

Describe the source’s initial approach to Süddeutsche Zeitung.

The first approach was an anonymous person contacting us saying, “Hello. My name is John Doe. Are you interested in data?” That’s a sentence every investigative journalist is like, “Wow, I have to be careful and speak on with this person.”

How did they reach out, by encrypted chat or email or what?

We offer several ways of contacting us — encrypted ways. Normal chat programs like Signal, Threema. We offer PGP, S/MIME. I hope you understand that we don’t want to go into detail on which encrypted ways the initial approach was.

Some years ago we realized that for investigative journalists it would be irresponsible not to encrypt. Especially after the Snowden revelations, everybody, especially journalists, should be aware that it would be a bad idea if you do not offer ways of encrypted communication for your sources. Because it’s a huge risk for us and especially our sources. If you look at the source of the Panama papers, this source is taking a tremendous risk. Look at the people that are uncovered now: We have friends of Vladimir Putin, members of the mafia, alleged financiers of terrorism, we have bagmen of several autocrats and kleptocrats. In this field of journalism, there is no way of doing this without encryption.

Why do you think the source chose to leak these documents through Süddeutsche Zeitung?

I’d rather not comment on that. We have to protect our source.

You don’t know who the source is.

No. I don’t know the name.

That’s obviously unusual. Did not knowing their identity make you hesitate to use the material?

Yes. We’re very very very cautious. Because, I mean, you never know who is behind something like that. We took dozens of measures to try to verify this material. In the end, we were sure that the material we are reporting on is authentic.

When you asked the source why they were doing it, they said it was to expose major crimes. Do you really think that was their motivation? Does it matter what the source’s motivation was?

Yes, I really believe that. But we can’t be sure, of course. For me, in the end, the motivation is not the major point. For me it’s important that the material is valid, that we had the possibility to do cross-checks, that it’s authentic and not falsified. For me it counts what’s in this material, and not the motivation of the source.

At what point did the scale of what you’d been given become clear? Was it obvious right from the beginning?

In the beginning it was very fast. My colleague Bastian [Obermayer] and me realized right away that the material is amazing. But it took some time to realize how big it is and how many interesting stories and important stories to tell are hiding in this trove. I would say last summer was when we realized, “Wow, this is going to be a big cooperation of journalists around the world.” That was the time we met our colleagues from around the world at the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in Washington.

Could Süddeutsche Zeitung have handled something like this on its own?

I mean, that would’ve been a theoretical option. But at Süddeutsche Zeitung we really believe in the power of international cooperation. Because we all think that we’re living in an era where everything is interconnected, every topic. Doing an investigation of this scale with a team of — we are a team of five people here — that would’ve been something for a lifetime, or ten years, or something like that. We have been part of the Offshore Leaks, the Swiss Leaks, the Lux Leaks projects of the ICIJ and we really believe in the idea of the ICIJ. For investigative reporters in the past it was not usual to share material, but these projects have shown already that we are always better in a huge group of journalists than doing it alone.

What have the last 48 hours been like?

The most crazy time of my life.

How much is still to come?

We are still at the beginning. I can say, at least at Süddeutsche Zeitung, we are planning some weeks of reporting new stuff.

Is there risk given the sheer scale and complexity of the information that the impact is lessened? I mean, there’s just so much here for readers to get their heads around. Maybe that’ll turn people off.

Yes, there is this risk. Look on day one for example, we reported on Putin’s inner circle, Petro Poroshenko from Ukraine, the Icelandic Prime Minister, FIFA’s ethics committee. Any one of those would’ve been a page one story in Süddeutsche Zeitung. But we had no choice. We realized there are so many great stories in this leak you can’t do it one day after another because you would be reporting for months. You have to run the risk that there may be some people saying, “OK, after the Ukraine story, I do not want to read another investigative report in this newspaper.” But that’s how it is.

I’m pretty sure that it’s not always the same audience. The people who read our FIFA story are not exactly the same people that read the Russia story.

If there’s one thing you’d like readers to take away from your reporting, what would that be?

Personally, I would say this leak showed again that nobody who is hiding his wrongdoing in the offshore world can feel safe. Who knows which other whistleblowers are out there?

For us, we are a pretty big newspaper in Germany but on a global perspective we are a small newspaper. It was important to show potential whistleblowers out there that we are able to deal with this material, in a secure and responsible way, protecting our sources but at the same time being able to bring our investigations to the world.

You’re part of a dwindling number of dedicated investigative teams in European newsrooms. In your view, is investigative journalism getting easier or harder?

If you look at media houses in Europe, I think nearly everyone is facing financial problems. But at the same time I’m really confident that investigative journalism, huge investigative stories like this, are a way of showing why people should pay for a newspaper, pay to use a website, to listen to a program. If we can show our audience that we’re offering something special, that nobody else is offering, no other competitor in Germany is offering . . .

Readers are really aware of what amount of money such an investigation costs, of how many people are involved in such an investigation, and they’re willing to pay for it. I think that’s important because we’re all speaking about how to finance journalism in future. For commercial media outlets like Süddeutsche Zeitung, it’s important to explain to readers why they should pay for this newspaper. Investigations like Panama Papers are a major reason, in my opinion.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Authors:

Related stories on these topics:

Franz Ferdinand

Is that really investigative journalism? Its certainly good data analytics which is perhaps the new way of scooping a story. But in theory every rookie freelancer could be the recipient of such a exclusive data dump. Where is the real journalistic work here apart from cross-checking authenticity? The good old undisciplined leak has long been replaced by the controlled “plant” and newly by the mono-sourced digital avalanche coming to you if you wait. Anyway, good job SZ!

Posted on 4/5/16 | 10:44 PM CEST

Dale Dunphy

Personally I believe we are at an age where it is time to flood people with the data they need to make sense of everything. They are growing up, they can take it, and the longer things are sat on, the better chance they can be altered or manipulated into not being revealed. Let the chips fall where they may.